{ "id": "R45952", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R45952", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 606057, "date": "2019-10-10", "retrieved": "2019-10-10T22:13:14.601102", "title": "U.S. Offshore Aquaculture Regulation and Development", "summary": "Regulatory uncertainty has been identified as one of the main barriers to offshore aquaculture development in the United States. Many industry observers have emphasized that congressional action may be necessary to provide statutory authority to develop aquaculture in offshore areas. Offshore aquaculture is generally defined as the rearing of marine organisms in ocean waters beyond significant coastal influence, primarily in the federal waters of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Establishing an offshore aquaculture operation is contingent on obtaining several federal permits and fulfilling a number of additional consultation and review requirements from different federal agencies responsible for various general authorities that apply to aquaculture. However, there is no explicit statutory authority for permitting and developing aquaculture in federal waters. The aquaculture permit and consultation process in federal waters has been described as complex, time consuming, and difficult to navigate. \nSupporters of aquaculture have asserted that development of the industry, especially in offshore areas, has significant potential to increase U.S. seafood production and provide economic opportunities for coastal communities. Currently, marine aquaculture facilities are located in nearshore state waters. Although there are some research-focused and proposed commercial offshore facilities, no commercial facilities are currently operating in U.S. federal waters. Aquaculture supporters note that the extensive U.S. coastline and adjacent U.S. ocean waters provide potential sites for offshore aquaculture development. They reason that by moving offshore, aquaculturalists can avoid many user conflicts they have encountered in inshore areas. Offshore areas also are considered to be less prone to pollution and fish diseases. \nEnvironmental organizations and fishermen generally have opposed development of offshore aquaculture. They assert that poorly regulated aquaculture development in inshore areas has degraded the environment and harmed wild fish populations and ecosystems. Those who oppose aquaculture development generally advocate for new authorities to regulate offshore aquaculture and to safeguard the environment and other uses of offshore waters. Some segments of the commercial fishing industry also have expressed concerns with potential development of aquaculture on fishing grounds and competition between cultured and wild products in domestic markets. \nProponents of aquaculture counter that in many parts of the world a combination of farming experiences, technological advances, proper siting, and industry regulation has decreased environmental impacts and improved efficiency of marine aquaculture. They argue that many who oppose marine aquaculture lack an understanding of the benefits and risks of aquaculture and that opposition persists despite research that contradicts the extent or existence of these risks. \nGenerally, the outcomes associated with aquaculture development depend on a variety of factors, such as the characteristics of aquaculture sites, species, technology, and facility management. Regardless of potential environmental harm, it remains to be seen whether moving to offshore areas would be profitable and if offshore aquaculture could compete with inshore aquaculture development and lower costs in other countries. \nComprehensive offshore aquaculture bills were introduced in the 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, and 115th Congresses, but none were enacted. In the 115th Congress, the Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture Act (AQUAA; S. 3138 and H.R. 6966) was introduced; AQUAA would have established a regulatory framework for aquaculture development in federal waters. It also would have provided National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries with the authority to issue aquaculture permits and coordinate with other federal agencies that have permitting and consultative responsibilities. Conversely, since the 109th Congress, bills have been introduced that would constrain or prohibit the permitting of aquaculture in the EEZ. The Keep Finfish Free Act of 2019 (H.R. 2467), introduced in the 116th Congress, would prohibit the issuance of permits to conduct finfish aquaculture in the EEZ until a law is enacted that allows such action. It remains an open question whether legislation could be crafted that would provide the regulatory framework desired by potential commercial developers of offshore aquaculture and avoid or minimize risks of environmental harm to the satisfaction of those currently opposed to offshore aquaculture development.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45952", "sha1": "74a22b32b357af43e6d4807bb9aae6b5b23e1dbe", "filename": "files/20191010_R45952_74a22b32b357af43e6d4807bb9aae6b5b23e1dbe.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45952_files&id=/0.png": "files/20191010_R45952_images_11b5be462d241e6d7c9bb7d7cb5b4e64a53327f3.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45952_files&id=/2.png": "files/20191010_R45952_images_771719d5110056a9edd9ba663cdba5b38327353a.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45952_files&id=/1.png": "files/20191010_R45952_images_f748f8dc635f8d887045e8a56dc91672c6e572ee.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45952_files&id=/3.png": "files/20191010_R45952_images_d1d213bcb614e0d4cf49030ae77cecfd2117fa0c.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45952", "sha1": "5fad4bb891b10e324bea0334d38554371860d6b6", "filename": "files/20191010_R45952_5fad4bb891b10e324bea0334d38554371860d6b6.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Economic Policy", "Energy Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }